Faster than count()

We have few table with a lot of row (few millions).
It's necessary to count the row.
We try with select count(*) count(PK) count(ROWID)...
The execution time was very long
It's possible to use NUM_ROWS of ALL_TABLES but is not the exactly row...
I try to found another way, please help me...

Hi,
Use count(*) or count(1) to get count of records. Unfortunately Oracle doesn't seem to maintain the current row counts of each table in the catalog tables so it must do a table-scan to calculate. I've often wondered why Oracle can't maintain counts of committed records in the catalog tables.
If this count is taking a long time, (what is a long time?), then you need to increase performance of your machine. This is your problem. If you don't have any indexes it will have to scan table. If you have a PK index, then it can just count the index.
I've done counts on 30 million rows and it returns in under 20 seconds. But then that is on a big machine.
Jeff

Similar Messages

  • How do you measure if a battery is failing faster than normal?

    How can you tell if your battery is failing faster than normal or acceptable?
    I bought 2 batteries with my G4 Powerbook 2 years ago. One now gives me an hour of battery life, and one 1.5 hours. This seems very low considering it's only 1 year of use per battery. Apple Care only asks about how long the battery has been owned... never how much it has been used, number of cycles, amps, etc.
    Battery Information:
    BATTERY #1
    Full Charge Capacity (mAh): 2703
    Remaining Capacity (mAh): 2170
    Amperage (mA): 637
    Voltage (mV): 12522
    Cycle Count: 190
    BATTERY #2:
    Full Charge Capacity (mAh): 3032
    Remaining Capacity (mAh): 3027
    Amperage (mA): 0
    Voltage (mV): 12417
    Cycle Count: 105
    Compare these numbers with my brother's PowerBook G4, bought just a few months after mine:
    My main battery has 209 cycles and a capacity of 3686 mAh. My secondary has only 29 cycles and a capacity of 4400 mAh.
    why does he have 3686 mAh after 209 cycles, and my bettery has 2703 after 190 cycles? Is there some way to tell if this is "inappropriate" loss of power?
    Thanks
    -Erika
    PowerBook G4   Mac OS X (10.4.4)  

    I did do several things wrong (that I only found out about now):
    1. I left the computer plugged into AC
    2. I stored whichever battery was not in use full, rather than half full
    But I did callibrate regularly (if only by necessity).
    I still think 1.5 hours at 2 years is not very good if you are using two batteries (that's really only one year each).
    However, I called AppleCare, and I was told they will only consider a battery if it has been owned for under a year, and has less than one hour of life at best. That still seems extremely low to me (I'd be upset if I had 1 hour at 1 year on my only battery), but such is life. I think the moral of the story is that it would help to give instructions about battery care with the computer, and don't buy an extra battery unless you really need it.

  • Why is kernel-2.6.9 (OEL-4) faster than kernel-2.6.18 (OEL-5) ?

    Hi,
    as long as RHEL-5 and then OEL-5 have been released, I have been wondering why my own programs, compiled and run on RHEL-5/OEL-5, are slower than the same programs compiled and run on RHEL-4/OEL-4 on the same machine. This is really barmy since gcc-4.1, shipped with RHEL-5/OEL-5, is very aggressive compiler and produces faster binary code than gcc-3.4.6, shipped with RHEL-4/OEL-4. I verified this hundred times testing both compilers on RHEL-4/OEL-4 and RHEL-5/OEL-5. The 4.1 compiler always produces faster executable on the same OS.
    The problem is obviously in kernel-2.6.18. There is something in the kernel (maybe scheduler?) that slows down the execution of programs. But what? I experimented with changing various kernel boot parameters (eg "acpi=off" etc), even tried to recompile the kernel many times with various combinations of config parameters, and nothing helps. Thus, I'm still wondering whether the problem is solvable by disabling one or more config parameters and recompiling the kernel, or is deeply embedded in the main kernel code.
    Is there anybody in this forum who experienced the same, say running OEL-4 before migrating to OEL-5?
    Here are two examples showing different execution times on OEL-4.5 (kernel-2.6.9-55.0.5.0.1.EL.i686, gcc-3.4.6-8.0.1) and OEL-5 (kernel-2.6.18-8.1.10.0.1.el5, gcc-4.1.1-52.el5.2). The first example is trivial but very sensitive to overal system load and kernel version. The second example is "Sieve of Eratosthenes" - the program for finding prime numbers (CPU bound).
    EXAMPLE 1.
    /*  Simle program for text screen console  */
    /*  very sensitive to overall system load  */
    /*  and kernel version                     */
    #include <stdio.h>
    int main(void)
        register int i;
        for(i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
         printf(" %d ", i);
        return 0;
    /* end of program */
    $ gcc -O2 -o example1 -s example1.c
    $ time ./example1The average execution times on OEL-4.5 and OEL-5 are as follow:
    Mode      OEL-4.5         OEL-5
    real      0m3.141s        0m4.931s
    user      0m0.394s        0m0.366s
    sys       0m2.747s        0m4.563s
    ----------------------------------As we can see, the program on the same machine, compiled and run on OEL-4.5 (gcc-3.4.6 and kernel-2.6.9) is 57% faster than the same program compiled and run on OEL-5 (gcc-4.1.1 and kernel-2.6.18), although gcc-4.1.1 produces much faster binary code. Since the times the process spent in user mode are almost equal on both OS, the whole difference is due to the time the process spent in kernel mode. Note that kernel mode (sys) is taking 66% more time on OEL-5. It tells me that "something" in the kernel-2.6.18 slows down the execution of the program.
    In the second example OEL-4.5 is also faster than OEL-5, but the differences in execution times are not so drastic as in the first example.
    EXAMPLE 2.
    /*           Sieve of Eratosthenes           */
    #define GNUSOURCE
    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>
    #define MAX_PRIME_AREA 100000
    #define REPEAT_LOOP 10000
    int main(void)
        int prime, composite, count;
        char *sieve_array;
        if ((sieve_array = (char *) malloc( (size_t) (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1))) == NULL)
         fprintf(stderr,"Memory block too big!\nMemory allocation failed!\a\n");
         exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
        for(count = 0; count < REPEAT_LOOP; count++)
         for(prime = 0; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime++)
                 *(sieve_array + prime) = (char) '\0';
         for(prime = 3; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime += 2)
             if (! *(sieve_array + prime) )
              *(sieve_array + prime) = (char) 'P';  /* offset prime is a prime */
                 for(composite = (2 * prime); composite < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); composite += prime)
                  *(sieve_array + composite) = (char) 'X';  /* offset composite is a composite */
            /* DO NOT COMPILE FOR TEST !!!
            fprintf(stdout, "\n%d\n", 2);
            for(prime = 3; prime < (MAX_PRIME_AREA + 1); prime += 2)
                if ( *(sieve_array + prime) == 'P' )
                    fprintf(stdout, "%d\n", prime);
        free(sieve_array);     
        return 0;
    /* End of Sieve of Eratosthenes */The average execution times on the same machine on OEL-4.5 and OEL-5 are:
    MAX_PRIME_AREA     Mode         OEL-4.5         OEL-5     
                       real         0m9.196s        0m10.531s
       100000          user         0m9.189s        0m10.478s
                       sys          0m0.002s        0m0.010s
                       real         0m20.264s       0m21.532s
       200000          user         0m20.233s       0m21.490s
                       sys          0m0.020s        0m0.025s
                       real         0m30.722s       0m33.502s
       300000          user         0m30.684s       0m33.456s 
                       sys          0m0.024s        0m0.032s
                       real         1m10.163s       1m15.215s
       400000          user         1m10.087s       1m14.704s
                       sys          0m0.075s        0m0.079s
    ---------------------------------------------------------Does this ring a bell with anyone? Any clue why?
    N.J.

    An hour? Hard to believe or is your hardware that
    old?An hour? That's a super good time for 3 kernel
    packages (i686, xen and PAE) with all modules, plus 3
    kernel-devel packages, plus debuginfo package of
    150-580 MB where smart people at Red Hat decided to
    put uncompressed vmlinux image which is necessary for
    kernel profiling and debugging. Ah, I had a different kernel make process in mind.
    Oracle doesn't ship
    debuginfo package. Of course, this is when I build a
    "complete suite" of kernel rpm packages using
    unmodified spec file. And, to be honest, it takes
    much more than an hour, maybe even two hours. Another
    thing is compiling single i686 kernel without
    building a package. But it also takes at least half
    an hour. Anyway the time significantly depends on how
    many modules are selected to be built in.That what I was looking for.
    What's your time to build a single kernel (which
    version?) with default set of modules ? On which
    hardware ? I've only access to a root server right now, which is
    cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep "model name"
    model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+with about 2GB of RAM
    free -m
                 total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
    Mem:          2024       1957         67          0        368       1291
    -/+ buffers/cache:        297       1727
    Swap:         3827         24       3803under
    uname -a
    Linux base 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 #5 PREEMPT Mon Sep 10 22:32:37 CEST 2007 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+ AuthenticAMD GNU/LinuxThis is what i did
    cd /usr/src/linux
    make clean
    time nice -n  19 genkernel --lvm2 --makeopts="-j2" --oldconfig all
    * Running with options: --lvm2 --makeopts=-j2 --oldconfig all
    * Linux Kernel 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 for x86...*
    mount: /boot mounted successfully!
    * config: >> Running oldconfig...
    * config: --no-clean is enabled; leaving the .config alone.
    *         >> Compiling 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 bzImage...
    *         >> Compiling 2.6.22-gentoo-r5 modules......
    real    17m30.582s
    user    16m8.480s
    sys     1m9.000sWhat could helped here was that I've switched off some modules and (maybe) the use of ccache.
    C.

  • Is Ethernet Faster Than Firewire

    Specifically, in moving files (movies, music, etc.) from my iMac to Mac Mini, and vice-versa, is transfer via ethernet faster than firewire? I assume both are faster than transfer through wireless networking.
    Thank you.

    Hi Brent NYC,
    Which is faster still depends on what you're dealing with as fard as the drive space. If you have slow drives (5,400 rpm drives) and you're feeding the data via Gig-E or Firewire, the ,imitation is going to be the drive of possibly the drives controller.
    The theoretical numbers are mostly "burst" speeds and not the consistant, sustained speeds which really count.
    I could go on all day about this but the truth is a correctly configure "real world" 100BaseT connection without Disk or LAN switch restrictions can move about 7 Megabytes a second.
    Same situation on a Gig-E netowrk will over about 40 with todays technology.
    This is based on using an IP protocol.
    Firewire800 can be faster, but will typically have less "jumps" (or overhead) to get to the destination.
    USB isn't close as of yet.
    Food for thought.

  • Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

    Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?:   When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

    Thanks Erik,
    If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
    As an aside....
    I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...)  were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

  • Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

    I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
    I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
    This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
    G4 Dual Gigabit   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   ATI 9800 Pro

    Terpstar,
    I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
    Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
    Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

  • I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

    I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

    Can i add a normal usb driver?
    Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
    I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
    The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
    It will work as fast than time capsule?
    No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

  • Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

    I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
    compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
    What's wrong with this picture?

    Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
    As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

  • New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

    So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
    I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
    Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally.  I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC.  Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
    And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
    I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

    That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
    I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
    Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth.  It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
    Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
    This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively).  Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

  • Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

    Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

    I have no real idea, but I suspect
    * the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
    * it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

  • How can I get rid of this Lollipop update?  My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

    I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem.  Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen.  The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
    Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

    Thanks.  I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager.  It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
    I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources.  (Fresh boot and all)
    What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
    No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
    <Rant off>

  • Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

    Hi,
        Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

    The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display.  The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2.  Whether it's important to you, only you can know.  To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad.  For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

  • Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

    A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
    The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
    It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
    I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
    Thanks for any suggestions.
    -Vincent

    So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
    That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
    At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
    Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
    Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
    I've written a better explaination here
    click for text doc

  • The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

    The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
    This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

    Hi Mac Attack,
    My computer will not disconnect from the internet.  It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
    Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
    If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
    Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
    Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
    System Preferences > General
    Have a look at your settings in System Preferences >  Security & Privacy.
    Call back with more questions.
    Regards,
    Ian

  • Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

    My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

    Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
    If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
    Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
    You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Maybe you are looking for